MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007304737

31 Mart 2019 Yerel Seçimlerinde Ankara Ve İzmir Büyükşehir Belediye Başkan Adaylarının Twitter Kullanımları Üzerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz

2019· article· tr· W3007304737 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Neslihan KILIÇ

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagetr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Discourse and Social Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesMathematicsArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BASLIK: 31 Mart 2019 Yerel Secimlerinde Ankara Ve Izmir Buyuksehir Belediye Baskan Adaylarinin Twitter Kullanimlari Uzerine Karsilastirmali Bir Analiz OZ: Siyasi partiler, liderler ve diger siyasi aktorler secim kampanyalari suresince cesitli iletisim arac ve teknikleriyle kamuoyunun siyasi tercihlerini etkilemeye calisirlar. Sosyal medyanin henuz siyasal iletisimde kullanilmadigi donemlerde radyo, televizyon ve gazete gibi geleneksel kitle iletisim araclari siyasal iletisimin vazgecilmez araclari konumundaydi. Ancak internetin 2000’li yillardan itibaren yayginlasmasiyla siyasal iletisimde yeni bir donem baslamis ve geleneksel kitle iletisim araclarinin siyasal iletisimdeki belirleyici rolu sona ermistir. Gunumuzde siyasal iletisimin en onemli unsurlarindan birini de sosyal medya olusturmaktadir. Internetin ve akabinde sosyal medyanin yaygin kullanimiyla siyasi aktorler cok genis kitlelere mesajlarini iletebilmektedirler. Geleneksel kitle iletisim araclarina gore maliyet, hiz, yayginlik gibi avantajlara sahip olmasi, sosyal medyanin kullanim ve etki alanini her gecen gun genisletmektedir. Bu calismada 31 Mart 2019 Yerel Secimlerinde Ankara ve Izmir’de Buyuksehir Belediye Baskanligina aday gosterilen siyasi aktorlerin bir siyasal iletisim uzami olarak sosyal medya kullanimlari Twitter ornegi uzerinden incelenmistir. Calismada oncelikle adaylarin paylasim sayilari ve paylasim teknikleri nicel analizle belirlenmistir. Ardindan adaylarin paylasimlarinda hangi konulara oncelik verdigi karsilastirmali olarak analiz edilmistir. Boylece 2019 Yerel Secimlerinde Ankara ve Izmir Buyuksehir Belediye Baskan Adaylarinin Twitter’i nasil ve hangi siklikta kullandigi ve adaylarin onem atfettigi oncelikli konular somutlastirilmis ve sosyal medya kullanim pratikleri acisindan adaylar arasinda bir mukayese yapilabilmesine imkân saglanmistir. Arastirmanin sonucunda adaylarin Twitter’i bir siyasal iletisim uzami olarak degerlendirdiklerini, sayilari degismekle birlikte genel olarak hemen her kategoride paylasimda bulunduklarini, Twitter’in teknik ozelliklerine hâkim olduklarini ve paylasim iceriklerine uygun olarak bu ozelliklerden ust duzeyde yararlandiklarini ifade etmek mumkundur.  Ayrica bir siyasal iletisim uzami olarak sosyal medyanin siyasi aktorlerin secmen kitlelerine kendilerini ifade edebilmeleri icin onemli bir alternatif olmakla birlikte politik basariya etkisinin tek basina belirleyici olmadigi da arastirmanin bir diger onemli bulgusudur. ANAHTAR KELIMELER: Siyasal Iletisim, 31 Mart Yerel Secimleri, Baskan Adaylari, Sosyal Medya, Twitter. ABSTRACT: A Comparative Analysis of Twitter Use of The President Candidates of Ankara And Izmir Metropolitan Municipality In The Local Elections of 31 March 2019 Political parties, leaders and other political actors try to influence the political preferences of the public through various communication tools and techniques during the election campaigns. In times when social media were not yet used in political communication, traditional mass media such as radio, television and newspapers were indispensable tools of political communication. However, with the spread of the internet since the 2000s, a new era began in political communication and the decisive role of traditional mass media in political communication ended. Today, one of the most important elements of political communication is social media. With the widespread use of the Internet and subsequent social media, political actors are able to communicate their message to a wide audience. Having advantages such as cost, speed and prevalence compared to traditional mass media is expanding the usage and impact area of social media with each passing day. In this study, the use of social media as a political communication space of the political actors nominated as mayors of the Metropolitan Municipality in Ankara and Izmir in the March 31, 2019 Local Elections was examined through the Twitter example. In the study, first of all, the number of shares and the sharing techniques of the candidates were determined by quantitative analysis. Then, the issues that the candidates gave priority in their sharing were analyzed comparatively. In this way, how and how often the candidates of the Mayor of Ankara and Izmir Metropolitan Municipality used Twitter in the Local Elections of 2019 and the priority issues that the candidates attach importance to were materialized and a comparison was made between the candidates in terms of social media usage practices. As a result of the research, it is possible to state that the candidates evaluate Twitter as a political communication space, although their numbers vary, they generally share in almost all categories, that they have mastered the technical characteristics of Twitter and that they benefit from these features at a high level. In addition, it is another important finding of the study that social media as a political communication space is an important alternative for political actors to express themselves to the voter masses, but the effect on political success alone is not decisive. KEYWORDS: Political Communication, March 31 Local Elections, Presidential Candidates, Social Media, Twitter. KAYNAKCA: Acar, E. (2012). “ Sosyal medyada 12 Haziran genel secimleri. hepimiz globaliz”. hepimiz globaliz hepimiz yereliz . Ed. Edibe Sozen. Istanbul: Alfa Yayinlari. Aziz, A. (2006). T elevizyon ve radyo yayinciligi . Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi. Aziz, A. (2010). Iletisime giris . Istanbul: Hiper Link Yayinlari. Bayraktutan, G, Binark, M, Comu, T, Dogu, B, Islamoglu, G, Aydemir, A,  (2014). Siyasal iletisim surecinde sosyal medya ve Turkiye’de 2011 genel secimlerinde Twitter kullanimi. Bilig , (68) , 59-96. Cobanoglu, S. (2007). Suskunluk sarmali ve siyasal iletisim . Istanbul: Fide Yayinlari. Devran, Y. (2003). S iyasal kampanya yonetimi . Istanbul: And Yayinlari. Dostie-Goulet, E. (2009). Social networks and the development of political interest. Journal of Youth Studies , 12 (4) , 405-421. Erdogan, I. (2012). P ozitivist metodoloji ve otesi, arastirma tasarimlari, niteliksel ve istatistiksel yontemler . Ankara: Erk Yayinlari. Fidan, Z. ve Ozer, N. P. (2014). Siyasi partilerin siyasal iletisim araci olarak  web sayfalarini kullanimi. Gumushane Universitesi Iletisim Fakultesi Elektronik Dergisi, 2 (4), 211-233. Gucdemir, Y. ve Goksu, O. (2015). Sosyal medyanin siyasal iletisim araci olarak kullanimi: Barack Obama'nin 2012 Baskanlik secim kampanyasi ile Recep Tayyip Erdogan'in 2014 Cumhurbaskanligi secim kampanyasinin incelenmesi. Filiz A. (Ed.) Iletisim Calismalari icinde. Istanbul: Derin Yayinlari. Guven, H. (2006). Radyo program yapimi ve radyo yapimciligi . Ankara: Imaj Kitabevi. Guz, N. (2005). Haberde yonlendirme ve kamuoyu arastirmalari . Ankara: Nobel Yayin Dagitim. Guz, N, Yegen, C. ve Aydin, B. O. (2019). Dijital propaganda ve politik basari: 24 Haziran 2018 Cumhurbaskanligi seciminin Twitter analizi. Erciyes Iletisim Dergisi, 6 (2) , 1461-1482. Kilic, N. (2019). Geleneksel medya ile yeni medyanin karsilastirilmasi: kuramsal bir analiz calismasi. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (Sobider), 6 (36) , 227-239. Manovich, L. (2006). “What is New Media”. Hassan, R and Thomas, J. (Ed.) The New Media Theory Reader icinde, (pp.5-10). London: Open University Press. Mayfield, A. (2008). What is Social Media? e ‐ book, s. 6. http://www.icrossing.co.uk/fileadmin/uploads/eBooks/What_is_Social_Media_iCrossing_ebook.pdf .  Erisim Tarihi: 24.05.2019. McLuhan, M. (1962). Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man , Canada: University of Toronto Press. Mutlu, E. (2012). Iletisim sozlugu . Ankara: Sofos Yayinlari. Onat, F. ve Okmeydan, C. K. (2015). Politik halkla iliskilerde sosyal medya kullanimi: 30 Mart 2014 yerel secimleri ve 10 Agustos 2014 Cumhurbaskanligi secimleri. Akdeniz Universitesi Iletisim Fakultesi Dergisi, 23 , 79-94. Ozerkan, S. ve Inceoglu, Y. (1997). Iletisimde etkileme sureci . Istanbul: Pan Yayincilik. Tokgoz, O. (2000). Temel gazetecilik . Ankara: Imge Kitabevi. Toprak, A, Binark, M. ve Yildirim, A. (2009). Toplumsal paylasim agi Facebook- goruluyorum oyleyse varim!. Istanbul: Kalkedon Yayinlari. Yasin, C. (2006). Siyasal kampanya yonetiminde butuncul yaklasim. Selcuk Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, 15 , 631-650. Yaylagul, L. (2008). Kitle iletisim kuramlari egemen ve elestirel yaklasimlar . Ankara: Dipnot Yayinlari. Dijilopedi, https://dijilopedi.com /2019-turkiye-internet-kullanim-ve- sosyal-medya-  istatistikleri Erisim Tarihi: 05.05.2019. Ozhaseki, M. (2019). https://twitter.com/mehmetozhaseki Erisim Tarihi: 17.05.2019. Soyer, T. (2019). https://twitter.com/tuncsoyer Erisim Tarihi: 20.05.2019. TRT Haber, https://secim2019.trthaber.com Erisim Tarihi 12. 05. 2019. Yavas, M. (2019). https://twitter.com/mansuryavas06 Erisim Tarihi: 15.05.2019. Yuksek Secim Kurulu, http://www.ysk.gov.tr/doc/dosyalar/docs/2019 MahalliIdareler/ 2019 Buyuksehir-AdayListesi.pdf Erisim Tarihi: 10.05.2019. Zeybekci, N. (2019). https://twitter.com/ZeybekciNihat Erisim Tarihi: 20.05.2019.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.019

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedia Discourse and Social AnalysisFrench-language works237,207